Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 920 (RAJ)

Asha v. Brijmohan Chabra

2014-04-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. All these criminal misc. petitions under section 482 Cr.PC have been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 13.03.2014 passed by Metropolitan Judge (N.I. Act Cases) No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in different criminal cases lodged at the instance of the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the N.I. Act hereinafter). 2. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved applications under sections 293 and 45 CrPC read with section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer that the cheques in question be sent for examination of signatures to the Handwriting Expert. The said applications of the petitioner have been rejected by the trial court by impugned orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner has not handed over any cheque to the respondent No.1 and the signatures on the said cheques are not of the petitioner, the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for sending the cheques in dispute to the Handwriting Expert. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned trial court has illegally rejected the applications of the petitioner without considering the said aspects of the matter and prayed for quashing of the impugned orders and also prayed that the learned trial court may be directed to send the cheques in dispute for examination of her signatures to the Handwriting Expert. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 5. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has sent a notice through Advocate to the respondent No.1 in which, she has admitted that she has handed over forty cheques of Rs. 17,500/-, each to the respondent No.1. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration the copy of the passbook pertaining to the respondent No.1 in which, one cheque, out of forty cheques, was realized. While rejecting the applications of the petitioner, the trial court has observed that the Bank concerned has not dishonoured the cheque on the ground of dissimilarity in the signatures of the petitioner on the cheques from the signatures of the petitioner recorded in the Bank. While rejecting the applications of the petitioner, the trial court has observed that the Bank concerned has not dishonoured the cheque on the ground of dissimilarity in the signatures of the petitioner on the cheques from the signatures of the petitioner recorded in the Bank. The learned trial court has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Mahendra Singh vs. Kanti Lal, 2012 (1) NIJ 571 (Raj) and held that when the cheques in question were returned by the Bank concerned with the endorsement "insufficient fund" and not on account of dissimilarities in the signatures, there is no point in sending the cheques for examination of the signatures of the petitioner to the Handwriting Expert. 6. After perusing the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the applications of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner herself, in the legal notice sent on her behalf to the respondent No.1, has admitted the fact that she has handed over the cheques to the respondent No.1 It is noticed that the cheques in question were not returned by the Bank on the ground of dissimilarities in the signatures of the petitioner but were returned on account of insufficient fund in Bank account of the petitioner and, therefore, there is no point in sending the cheques in question for examination of signatures of the petitioner to the Handwriting Expert. If at all, the petitioner wishes to dispute her signatures on the cheques, then it is always open to her to summon her Banker along with the account opening form for proving her defence regarding dissimilarities in signatures. 7. Consequently, these criminal misc. petitions, being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed. Stay petitions also stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.